(Dubious gambit, as it gives White a free pawn without much compensation in counterplay/tempo unlike 1 ...f5 or 1...d5. Or just 1 ...c5, really, no need for a gambit [yet], even if you're feeling aggressive. Might be okay for blitz games though, as most people rarely encounter this opening and almost never prepare for this line.)

I'm expecting Stabber to c6 then Stabber to d5 no matter what my next move is. That gets strength in the center and opens up the Chief Warlord's side, with me just moving a Healomancer around.

(Dubious gambit, as it gives White a free pawn without much compensation in counterplay/tempo unlike 1 ...f5 or 1...d5. Or just 1 ...c5, really, no need for a gambit [yet], even if you're feeling aggressive. Might be okay for blitz games though, as most people rarely encounter this opening and almost never prepare for this line.)

I'm expecting Stabber to c6 then Stabber to d5 no matter what my next move is. That gets strength in the center and opens up the Chief Warlord's side, with me just moving a Healomancer around.

In all honesty, I'm just playing Calvinchess right now, where the rules are made up and the moves don't matter.

I'm expecting Stabber to c6 then Stabber to d5 no matter what my next move is. That gets strength in the center and opens up the Chief Warlord's side, with me just moving a Healomancer around.

Ehh, just withdraw the Healo to c4. If he decides to advance the Stabber to d5, just do exd5, and if he takes back, you'll get to move your Healo back to b5 with check, gaining tempo. Sure, he can block with Nc6, but that leaves it pinned, and you'll end up with a pseudo Ruy Lopez opening with you a stabber ahead.

Alternatively, you can just bunker up the Healo at e2 (or possibly Bd3), followed by Nf3 and then O-O at some point (and exd5 or Nc3 or d3 if it becomes necessary), and you have a pretty safe game. Easy to maintain that stabber advantage.

I'm expecting Stabber to c6 then Stabber to d5 no matter what my next move is. That gets strength in the center and opens up the Chief Warlord's side, with me just moving a Healomancer around.

Ehh, just bunker up the Healo at e2 (or possibly Bd3), followed by Nf3 and then O-O at some point (and exd5 if it becomes necessary), and you have a pretty safe game. Easy to maintain that stabber advantage.

Yeah, that's what I'd end up having to do, but I just don't like blocking my Chief Warlord like that. Pushing a Stabber to open her outside takes away from my center. If this was a real game against an unknown opponent I would have started with a basic Chief Warlord's Gambit.

I was expecting a fast game though, so flashy win or flashy loss was what I wanted. I like the Scotch Game for that. That Stabber move completely blew it out of the water.

This wouldn't have happened had Crisis bothered to promote his Stabber to heir once he got that to the other end of the board. Although, Crisis may have been able to do that even sooner, it is clear he wanted to be a stinge on upkeep costs.

This wouldn't have happened had Crisis bothered to promote his Stabber to heir once he got that to the other end of the board. Although, Crisis may have been able to do that even sooner, it is clear he wanted to be a stinge on upkeep costs.

You used to be able to promote your own Stabber to become your opponent's Heir/CWL (or just a normal Knight) for shenanigans. Unfortunately, the Titans have since patched away that particular rules loophole.

On the subject of skepticism, I take the same stance as I take about nihilism.

If nothing matters, than neither does the observation that nothing matters.

If nothing can be known with certainty, then we can't know that nothing can be known with certainty.

I'm a nihilist. And a skeptic. But just as my nihilism means I can't regard nihilism as important, so my skepticism means I can't regard skepticism as certain.

It isn't really possible to be absolutely opposed to absolutism. That's just being absolutist.

Nihilism suggests that just laying down and waiting for death is as good a course as any other...until you feel like doing something else. Try it sometime, and after a few hours you'll decide that wandering into the next room and eating some chips is as good a course as lying down and waiting for death. When you really believe that you can't know anything for certain, you wonder if maybe that's just a crazy thing to believe.

As for sending Stanley the message about I'm Coming For You Stanley, rulers sense when their units are getting croaked (as well as when they level and stuff). That includes when those units are prisoners. Even if Stanley didn't notice the name change because of the prisoners, when Duncan started dusting all of them, one by one, Stanley probably noticed it was now happening in "I'm Coming For You Stanley" rather than "Gobwin Knob".

Carnymancers don't like to talk about exactly how Carnymancy works. But a big part of it does seem to be manipulating what units believe about their Fate. Rhyme-o-mancy seems to be portrayed as boosting rolls, Hat Magic seems to involve teleportation and conjuration (which might be teleporting things from elsewhere). Carnymancy can do more than just trick units into believing things they wouldn't otherwise believe. But Jojo's spell to make Sylvia the agent of her own eventual destruction took several turns worth of casting. A Dollamancer could have made quite a few battle units in that time, a Dirtamancer could reinforce a cities defenses to make it significantly cheaper to upgrade and cost an attacker dozens or even hundreds more casualties, etc. (basically, I'm saying it was a big spell). And a big part of that spell seemed to consist of convincing her that she couldn't die in a fire, or at all, even.

Which is interesting. When we're trying to be 'sane' we think of our beliefs being shaped by our perception of reality. But what if our perception of reality can be influenced by our beliefs much more than we suppose? Reality is what kills you without regard to whether or not you believe in it. But what if you can avoid perceiving that you've been killed if you believe strongly enough?

I think it's foolish to say that there is no chance that there is an afterlife. People experience near-death experiences, we know this. What if that experience doesn't 'end' in a perceivable way when you die? Like being tossed into a black hole, only in reverse. From the outside you die and that's that, but what if the person dying doesn't ever experience the end of death, as far as they can tell that NDE just stretches out forever?

Does that matter? No. But it doesn't matter whether I lie down and die or go in the other room and have something to eat, and yet when a certain mood strikes I prefer the latter. And I'll say from experience, lying down and waiting to die takes a good bit longer to have a significant effect than going in the other room and eating something. If it doesn't matter anyway, I'd rather die experiencing satisfaction with life than die feeling like it didn't matter. Because it doesn't matter which I feel, so I'll just pick the one I happen to prefer for no particular reason.

There are some things reality will prevent your perceptions from allowing you to believe. I think some people live their lives in a way that makes them ineligible for a pleasant NDE. They condition their brain in ways that ensure that death is gonna suck...and maybe they'll never experience the end of that suckage. Making your personal survival the highest good you're willing to believe exists seems like a good way to make death suck more than is strictly necessary. Leaving open the possibility that something good exists after death makes dying less terrible. It also helps you hang out with people who, in life, feel good about doing good things for you. It even helps you feel less annoyed about having to do good things for them.

Of course, believing something for the benefits it confers regardless of whether it is really true is...well, not belief at all. Or is it? I've never been clear on that.

The point is, what we believe can impact our perception of reality. Not in the same way that reality must impact our perception. Not at all. But I think that Carnymancy being about getting units to believe something about their Fate is far from an insignificant power.

Everything can be known for certain. If you don't know something for certain, then it says less about your knowledge base than it does for your LACK OF FAITH in the pre-existing scientific ideals.

The bolded assertion here is "known for certain" to be false. We have a mathematical proof of undecidability for some propositions, and moreover a proof that every system of formal logic must contain such propositions.

Which is a neat demonstration of why "faith in scientific ideals" isn't guaranteed to get you anywhere. Just follow the data, follow the logical chains, and don't try to force them to a destination just because "everybody knows" that it's true.

That's why the phrase "certainly know what isn't so" isn't arrant nonsense, it's a precise descriptor of a specific definition of "know". That it is the definition of something that we should all like to avoid doesn't change the fact that it is one of the senses in which the term "know" is frequently used (often unintentionally).

In-page footnotes, comments, and transcripts on comic pages require enabling in-page JavaScript. View the footnotes on the wiki here, and the transcript on the wiki here